Whenever I encounter an ND who calls or considers himself a doctor, physician, general practitioner or scientist rather than a faith or natural healer, I think of him as naturally deluded. How else can one explain how, despite all the objective, scientific evidence to the contrary, Vermont NDs include silver in their formulary? http://rosemary-jacobs.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html How else can one explain why, despite all the evidence to the contrary, they believe that the doctorate degrees their institutions award them accurately portray who they are and qualify them to practice scientific medicine?
Having been permanently disfigured by an ignorant, though not deluded, MD over fifty years ago, it scares the hell out of me to see that NDs, most of whom probably weren’t even alive then, are still wallowing in the same ignorance that he did. For me it’s very personal. http://www.webanstrich.de/rosemary/
But naturopaths’ use and promotion of silver isn’t the only reason that I think that NDs are deluded in their belief that they are qualified to work as doctors, physicians and general practitioners or that they understand scientific or evidence-based medicine as many claim in the reams of promotional material they publish. At least two MDs who have investigated the matter agree wholeheartedly.
Another MD who looked at their VT formulary told me that he had no idea where they got it from because it isn’t grounded in pharmacology or toxicology as they are currently understood. I know at least one layperson who shares these views and fears, a lady who corresponded with me a few years ago who calls them naturopathetics.
Yes. I know name-calling isn’t nice, but on a moral scale it is a whole lot better than believing that you practice scientific medicine when you are so ignorant of the subject that you include in your formulary a heavy metal toxin like silver which, if taken internally or in your eyes, offers no benefits whatsoever but can permanently disfigure you.
Although NDs are required to study scientific disciplines like biochemistry and pharmacology in their four year naturopathic colleges, either: they are taught alternative biochemistry and alternative pharmacology, as in the alternative to or opposite of scientific biochemistry and pharmacology; they don’t understand what they are taught; or, they simply don’t believe in science and objective evidence other than when it supports their natural healing belief-based philosophy. Their religion. Otherwise how could they include in their studies and practice the archaic belief-based medical system of Classical Homeopathy, http://www.aanmc.org/naturopathic-medicine/naturopathic-physicians-are-rigorously-trained.php, that maintains that well shaken water and sugar pills have miraculous healing properties? Scientifically speaking that is sheer and utter nonsense that doesn’t have a shred of objective evidence to substantiate it unless you think that testimonials about famous people using it, like the lady with the funny hats, count as scientific evidence.
My guess is that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, uses homeopathic “remedies” because she simply hates to abandon her ancient family traditions like silly hats, a throne, a crown, a luxurious lifestyle and the little black box of homeo “remedies” said to accompany her on her travels, which probably contains the exact same “remedies” that her ancestors took with them before the advent of scientific medicine as they traveled about by horse-drawn coaches. And again, my assessment of the scientific merits of homeopathy is shared by the vast majority of scientists and medical doctors.
(Please don’t make the erroneous assumption that all homeo “remedies” are benign, harmless or devoid of active ingredients because they are not. Like all unscientific systems of medicine, homeopathy and its “remedies” aren’t well regulated or standardized and the philosophies of belief-based medical systems can mutate quickly. People have been injured by products labeled “homeopathic” such as the “cold remedy” which really did contain zinc that caused anosmia, loss of smell. See p. 26:
Also homeopathy is highly individualized and not every homeopath follows the principles of Classical Homeopathy.)
NDs also study “botanical medicine” which for many certainly seems to mean herbalism, http://www.brattleboronaturopathic.com/mary.page.html, a healing system built on the belief that many plants have medicinal properties which our ancestors discovered over the centuries by trial and error. Herbalists, unlike scientists, believe that those properties are contained in the entire plant or an entire part of a plant like the leaf or flower and make their remedies, often tinctures, using them as the raw ingredients. They think that all the ingredients in the plant work together in “synergy”, and unlike scientists, they believe that there is no need to challenge their beliefs regarding safety and efficacy by conducting controlled scientific studies to determine if the objective evidence supports their opinions.
While many plants do have medicinal properties as well as toxic properties, plants are kind of like soup, full of many different ingredients or chemicals which can vary widely depending on many things.
That is why pharmacognosists, who are scientists specializing in pharmacy, work to identify and isolate active ingredients found in natural products, not just plants. When they succeed, they extract those chemicals and use them as drugs or synthesize them in labs, producing medicines that are standardized for purity and potency, things very important to scientists and MDs who are fanatical about making sure that the medicines they use consistently provide the correct dose and who are also fanatically about only using drugs that have been adequately and objectively studied before they use them on patients to make sure that they offer benefits, the amount that offers those benefits, the amount that is toxic to the average person, the side effects they produce, and the interactions they have with other drugs, food and now supplements.
Since “dietary supplements”, many of which are herbs, have become so popular, scientists have started to study some of them too, but as yet they haven’t come up with any scientific evidence that would make me take a “medicinal herb” or “botanical remedy”.
NDs also study and use Chinese medicine, another medical system not based on science that uses "remedies" that are often harmful. http://rosemaryjacobs.com/rose19.html
If it wasn’t all so very dangerous, it would be funny - grownups dressing up and playing doctor like children do and a former president of a naturopathic college alleged to be “one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural/integrative medicine” http://www.webmd.com/joe-pizzorno-jr-nd claiming that the cure for the common cold has been found.
Joseph Pizzorno, who was the president of Bastyr naturopathic school at the time, was quoted as saying on p. 114 of the 1998 April issue of Good Housekeeping magazine that, “There really is a cure for the common cold, and it’s echinacea. I take it when I feel a cold coming on, and I virtually never get sick.” Yea. Sure Joe. Scientific studies didn’t support your claim then and they don’t support it now, twelve years later. Look at what NCCAM, National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine says under the heading “What the Science Says". "Study results are mixed on whether echinacea can prevent or effectively treat upper respiratory tract infections such as the common cold.” http://nccam.nih.gov/health/echinacea/ataglance.htm Scientifically speaking that means the evidence isn’t in yet, Joe. Not that we’ve found The Cure even if you take it when you feel a cold coming on and don't get sick.
But wait that isn’t all. NCCAM also states, “Side Effects and Cautions: When taken by mouth, echinacea usually does not cause side effects. However, some people experience allergic reactions, including rashes, increased asthma, and anaphylaxis (a life-threatening allergic reaction). In clinical trials, gastrointestinal side effects were most common.”
Anaphylaxis! Wow. That kills you very quickly unless you have some epinephrine on hand to inject immediately. If you have ever heard of someone allergic to bees or peanuts who died suddenly after being exposed to them, they died of anaphylactic shock. That’s a hefty price to pay to cure a cold or worse yet hoping to cure a cold. Of course, it is my guess that there are very few people who would have such a serious allergic reaction to echinacea, but how many would want to risk dying over a cold? My guess is that most of those practicing scientific medicine would think that the hoped for benefit does not outweigh the risk just the way that they think that the lack of benefits derived from ingesting silver do not outweigh the risk of being permanently discolored by it and that it is a waste of money to use any product as a drug, even one known to be safe, unless there are many solid, objective, studies, the results of which have been consistently reproduced, showing that it offers benefits outweighing the risks its use entails. But that line of thought is alien to those practicing belief-based systems of medicine. But then they do not choose their drugs on the basis of objective, scientific evidence showing benefits and risks. They choose them based on their philosophies of healing.